I Admire Your Ability to Lose

I don’t want to suggest that I don’t play to win. I love winning. It’s just that, quite honestly, I love playing more than I love winning.

I listened to a political activist speak over the weekend. He was gathering signatures for a petition to put a referendum up for a vote in the November election. As he described the proposal and read the wording of the referendum itself, he also mentioned that this was the third time that he and his fellows had attempted to get the referendum to pass and that most likely it would fail again.

Following his presentation, I approached him in order to tell him that the thing I admired most about his discussion was his candor about the likely failure of his efforts and that I especially admired his willingness to lose -- but that he intended to go ahead and continue trying anyway.

He then explained to me why he was so ready to lose. He said that it was all about commitment, all about loyalty. He said that some men want to draw a big paycheck or build a great edifice, but he just wanted to speak something that he thought was right. It’s not about success, he said, it was about what was true, even if it wasn’t accepted as true.

I responded rather well to this explanation, since I have always leaned more towards a romantic perspective on things than a realistic one. Like many romantics, I often think that outcomes matter far less than the process of doing something. The act of questing or seeking something is often much more important than the reward. Indeed, completion frequently simply means a closure that is uninteresting by comparison to continuing to act.

Since I write about games, it was hard for me to not reflect afterwards a bit on how wins and losses are treated within the medium of video games.

In particular, this exchange got me thinking about my current gaming obsession, League of Legends, and how often the “problem” of loss, of surrender comes up in standard matches.

The premise of League of Legends is fairly simple. Two teams of five compete to destroy each others’ nexus. Doing so requires killing your opponents in order to gain money to buy equipment that makes you a more effective fighter and pushing and destroying towers that defend the opposite team’s nexus.

Matches can take anywhere from 20 minutes to around an hour. Of course, since a team could fall behind in the race to destroy their opponents nexus, there is alsways the option to surrender, forfeiting the game if you feel you have fallen too far behind to reasonably expect to win the match.

Since I started playing the game with some regularity eight months ago, I have found myself surprised at how common calls to surrender come from teams that have fallen even slightly behind. Sometimes a surrender vote will be called for when a team is only a kill or two behind the other or have lost just one tower. By contrast (but still with the spirit of surrender over loss in mind), other times surrender votes occur when the other team is in the process of destroying the nexus itself (meaning that there may be literally only two or three seconds left in a match).

Hanging in there in a match is incentivized by the fact that any match that one plays will reward a player with points that can be used to purchase game related goodies (like new characters or runes that empower players). Wins reward more points than losses (though not much more), losses secure more points than surrenders (though again with only slight differences), but overall, most of the points are gained by the length of time spent playing a match. In other words, the longer a match goes on, win or lose, the more points earned. Also, you cannot gain points for surrendering within the first twenty minutes.

All of these incentives both complicate and simplify the decision to surrender (in the latter case, no team really ever surrenders before the twenty minute mark). However, due to the small differences between the rewards for wins and losses, I have been shocked by how quickly many players are driven to hit that surrender button.

However, these practical “economic” reasons aside (as I said, I have ever been more the romantic, than the realist), I have simply been shocked at how many people simply want to quit at all, even in the face of inevitable loss.

As a gamer, I have always seen loss as having value in games. Chief of its virtues, loss has a profound effect on learning. Loss teaches what not to do next time and losing to a better opponent often offers insights on how to play better.

Even that description of loss, though, perhaps, speaks to a pragmatic approach to facing loss. Quite honestly, though, very often, I simply don’t like giving up in the face of defeat because I just don’t believe in bending a knee to my betters. I’d rather lose, than say uncle, as it were.

In a game I played a few months back a player in the game who was trying to convince my team (which was clearly losing) to surrender declared to us that we could not win. I responded, “Probably.” To which he asked, “Then why not surrender?” I responded, “Because sometimes it’s important to lose well.”

Now, I don’t want to suggest that I don’t play to win. I love winning. It’s just that, quite honestly, I love playing more than I love winning.

I feel in some way that, perhaps, the nature of the evolution of the concept of win states in video games may have changed our expectations about the goal of play. Early arcade games had clear “lose states,” the Game Over screen. Indeed, the inevitability of loss, of failure was built into the rather cynical quality of video games (G. Christopher Williams ”Pac-Man Will Die: Cynicism and Retro Gaming”, PopMatters, 28 July 2010). Eventual loss was expected in games until the concept of a goal, of a way to “beat” a game, to save a princess, or to save the world became a more significant outcome to play than merely scoring points.

We had been trained in the early arcade to lose, to expect to lose, and to accept losing.

The “continue” changed all that.

With the addition of the ability to continue play came the expectation that all games could be “won,” would be won.

Modern video games essentially have two outcomes: quitting because you have had enough of the game or eventual victory. “Losing” really isn’t an option. Well, at least losing through a fail state, quitting is a choice, a decision, a surrender.

Indeed, early continue screens in console games frequently read something like this: “GAME OVER. Continue? Yes or No?” Now , continue screens very often simply state, “GAME OVER. Click X to continue,” as if being told you had lost means nothing. The expectation is that being “beaten” isn’t really a true state. Of course, the player intends to continue. The only reason people quit is because they lose interest, not because of a failure on their part.

I wonder how much of this mindset, the idea that a video game must be won, or if it just isn’t working out, that quitting a game is the only reasonable choice has infiltrated the general attitude of players towards loss. Can we no longer accept that loss happens, that it is important? Does the concept of “losing well” mean anything at all to the gamer any longer?

The year in song reflected the state of the world around us. Here are the 70 songs that spoke to us this year.

70. The Horrors - "Machine"

On their fifth album V, the Horrors expand on the bright, psychedelic territory they explored with Luminous, anchoring the ten new tracks with retro synths and guitar fuzz freakouts. "Machine" is the delicious outlier and the most vitriolic cut on the record, with Faris Badwan belting out accusations to the song's subject, who may even be us. The concept of alienation is nothing new, but here the Brits incorporate a beautiful metaphor of an insect trapped in amber as an illustration of the human caught within modernity. Whether our trappings are technological, psychological, or something else entirely makes the statement all the more chilling. - Tristan Kneschke

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.